site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29583 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Agree with everything you said, but Jews are allowed to organize for their own benefit and defense whereas non-Jewish whites are generally not. It's a hate crime to paint a swastika on a synagogue, but calls to kill whitey are generally met with shrugs.

To make another point...

Once we take away Jews, what percentage of college Presidents are white? What percentage of gentile whites are being admitted to Harvard? The dominance of Jews in the elite space is sucking up much of the quota reserved for whites.

And, for the record, I have no problem with the success of Jews. My friend group is dominated by Jewish people, and I think their success is mostly due to superiority of intellect. (Let's say 80% intellect, 20% clannishness). But if we are going to start leveling in a sort of Harrison Bergoron way, I don't think it's fair that Jews get a hugely disproportionate amount of the white quota. And, yes, it's a quota.

The best world is a race-blind world. But once we start noticing, then I don't want to be in the one group that it's allowed to discriminate against when there is a much more successful group right next door.

Agree with everything you said, but Jews are allowed to organize for their own benefit and defense whereas non-Jewish whites are generally not.

Yes, they are, they’re just not allowed to use the words ‘gentile whites’ to describe themselves. This is because gentile whites are a heterogeneous group mostly defined by things that they aren’t- with some exceptions, homogenous groups of white gentiles are allowed to organize in their own defense. It’s tragic that white southerners aren’t, but ultimately that’s because of anti-southern prejudice and not because of race communism or philosemitism.

Yes, they are, they’re just not allowed to use the words ‘gentile whites’ to describe themselves.

This is your reminder that "It's okay to be white" flyers posted on a university campus resulted in FBI involvement.

I have zero desire to organize based on my race. That doesn't change the fact that actually doing so is social/political/legal suicide.

Please tell me which group I can join as a straight, white American man? That's the most specific ethnic group I am a member of. I can't join the local Polish, Swedish, or Italian lodge. I am not those things. Basically, we're telling 20% of people in the US that they aren't allowed to have a grievance identity but everyone else is.

Please tell me which group I can join as a straight, white American man?

The republican Party? your local church group? the VFW? the Chive?

I find it difficult to believe that this question is being asked sincerely, and if it is, well fuck there is your problem. If you're defining yourself in terms of grievance and identity politics and expecting that to provide you with validation, you've already fucked up.

You are correct that I am not looking to join an identity grievance group.

That's why I want all the other identity grievance groups (which represent something like 80% of the population) to disband. Especially when some of the groups (like the ADL) represent people who are far more privileged than the group I belong to.

When a huge majority of the population is represented by a grievance group, it stops become about defending the rights of minorities and starts becoming about discriminating against the one minority that can't join one.

You need to accept that you can't contol what you can't control. Associate with people worth associating with and let the rest go.

There are plenty of mostly white groups that stick up for their members(lots of cultural Christian or rural groups, for example), and while progressives may not like them very much it also won’t get you canceled to join them.

Sure you can. It's just called the Club. It's just based on economic class rather than race; but anyone in the club is HwHite by association. The poor whites (the trash ones, that is. Everyone with less than 10 million dollars) are supposed to act as foot soldiers for their betters and not get uppity.

If you want a group basic on your racial identity and only your racial identity, you can found one. It's be pretty incoherent though, because if you are allowed in I am also allowed in, and I am a communist and also probably not actually the same race as you. eg, the Mut category isn't a recognized breed.

  • -12

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats